Conversation Analysis of Clients’ Active Resistance to Veterinarians’ Proposals for Long-Term Dietary Change in Companion Animal Practice in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of nutrition on animal health requires effective diet-related treatment recommendations in veterinary medicine. Despite low reported rates of veterinary clients' adherence with dietary recommendations, little is known about how clients' resistance to nutritional proposals is managed in the talk of veterinary consultations. This conversation-analytic study investigated clients' active resistance to veterinarians' proposals for long-term changes to cats' and dogs' diets in 23 segments from 21 videotaped appointments in Ontario, Canada. Clients' accounts suggested the proposals themselves or nutritional modifications were unnecessary, inappropriate, or unfeasible, most often based on patients' food preferences, multi-pet feeding issues, current use of equivalent strategies, or current enactment of the proposed changes. Resistance arose when veterinarians constructed proposals without first gathering relevant diet- and patient-related information, soliciting clients' perspectives, or educating them about the benefits of recommended changes. Veterinarians subsequently accommodated clients' concerns more often when resistance involved patient- or client-related issues rather than clients' lack of medical knowledge. The design of subsequent proposals accepted by clients frequently replaced dietary changes in the initial proposals with nutritional or non-nutritional alternatives and oriented to uncertainty about adherence. This study provides evidence-based findings for developing effective communication training and practice guidelines in nutritional assessment and shared decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".